2. The judgment of this case is a case in which the Defendant conspired with A and acquired KRW 35 million in total from the victim I. At the time, the Defendant committed each of the instant fraud without weight even though he was being investigated into a concurrent criminal relationship between each of the instant crimes and the latter part of subparagraph 37 of the Criminal Act, which led each of the instant crimes, acquired most of the proceeds of the instant crime, and made A make a false statement in the course of investigation and trial in connection with the instant crime. It is true that there is a need for strict punishment corresponding to the liability for such crime.

However, A paid KRW 20 million to the victim and agreed in full with the victim. The defendant deposited KRW 5 million for the victim and appears to have been restored to a considerable part of the damage to the victim; the defendant's equity in sentencing should be taken into account in the case of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and each of the crimes of fraud in this case at the same time when judgment is rendered; and other various sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the prosecutor's above assertion is not acceptable, since the court below's punishment is deemed to be too unjustifiable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, in the application of the law of the court below, it is clear that the "Articles 347 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act" is a clerical error in the "Article 347 (1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act". Thus, in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.